That's nice, but not relevant. We are arguing that the restriction which necessitates the jailbreak should not be in place to begin with. Apple should provide a button buried in settings to disable the walled garden for users who want to and know what they're doing.

I think what you're really saying is that you would like them to do that.

That they don't want to is their choice, but even more importantly, it's their right. The product works as Apple intended.

Perhaps in the future someone else will come around and show Apple the error of their ways, but I personally doubt that.

But if you're serious, then I guess you'd better start composing some letters to your elected representatives. While I can't say I'd be happy if your efforts were successful, I don't wish you any discomfort in the undertaking.

You're already causing me discomfort. The fact that you wouldn't be happy if I succeeded in securing your freedom is profoundly disturbing.

Wow. You sat in that chair, formulated that thought, chose those words, typed them, and hit the "Submit" button, knowing the action would place those words in a public forum for all to see.

That they don't want to is their choice, but even more importantly, it's their right

But, whatever else is true, it isn't their right.

We have never (at least since the 19th century) given corporations that kind of untrammeled right to do anything in particular, make any claim they want, and enforce any sort of license terms it decides is best for it.

Not as a matter of right.

We regulate, we litigate, we require all kinds of things. Not always, to be sure, but often enough.

And, the corporations thereby lose what you might have regarded as a "right."

That they don't want to is their choice, but even more importantly, it's their right

But, whatever else is true, it isn't their right.

We have never (at least since the 19th century) given corporations that kind of untrammeled right to do anything in particular, make any claim they want, and enforce any sort of license terms it decides is best for it.

Not as a matter of right.

We regulate, we litigate, we require all kinds of things. Not always, to be sure, but often enough.

And, the corporations thereby lose what you might have regarded as a "right."

Really, so what laws will you use to force Apple to allow you to side-load apps?

Really, so what laws will you use to force Apple to allow you to side-load apps?

Who knows, I'm not a lawyer.

The thing is, though, they are interfering with the business relationships between other companies and consumers.

Even though I'm not a lawyer, that's a pretty big hook and, depending on events, it could easily prove decisive.

That could eventually trip them up in anti-trust and other areas. The companies that were injured in various ways could sue and ask for equitable remedies which might be granted.

There is a principle of law called "tortuous interference in business" (meaning a "tort" cased by Apple's behavior) that might be successfully invoked by these companies, especially if they get organized about it, precisely because Apple inserted itself between those businesses and consumers.

Whatever laws were used to force the automaker's hands in terms of spare parts could be used, perhaps.

On the whole, we have ample law out there that frowns on exclusionary deals, especially involuntary ones, that some clever lawyer might discover.

It's limited only by the imagination of private and public lawyers.

The other problem is that Apple itself has kind of half dropped this shoe which might matter.

1. It allows corporations to bypass all this entirely.2. It "kind of" allows developers to bypass this (except they have to redownload everything every couple of months).

So, it would also be a problem in the sense that Apple can't claim this is some sort of universal necessity to have the product in the marketplace. Too many exceptions.

As a consumer, you're free to make a choice as to what device you buy. Don't whinge about the restrictions on said device after that freely made choice to buy it in the first place. As Echohead likes to remind us at every single opportunity, Android-powered devices are doing quite well in the marketplace and there are a plethora to choose from if you want a phone that you are free to crud up at your leisure.

The "move to Android" red herring seems to be the next most common fallacy in this thread. For starters, many of the people who do care about this issue do use Android, but that's not important. The fallacy here is one of distraction because "move to Android" does not address the issue in question, which is that iOS and Windows RT should permit sideloading. The existence or nonexistence of Android devices lacks relevance to the issue of whether or not iOS and Windows RT should permit sideloading.

This is a question of platform choice and the consequences of that choice. Apple is under no obligation to open up their platform to sideloading simply because you have ideological objections to their locked down platform. The presence of Android provides you, the user, an alternative platform that better suits your needs. For the rest of us, the tradeoffs associated with the locked-down nature of iOS are welcome ones and serve our needs. Apple's chosen their market and are free to cater to that market as they see fit. We're free to buy their products, or not. That's really the end of the discussion. You don't get to dictate what Apple does with their platform, save for voting with your wallet.

Quote:

the_stig_1 wrote:

I can try to toast eggs if I want to. It'll break the toaster, but I'm free to do so. I'm not free to install an application on my iPhone or iPad from a non-Apple source, so your analogy is broken.

You wrote that with sarcastic intent, but that's precisely what I'm arguing. If I want to do something stupid with my toaster, who the fuck are you to step in and tell me I can't as long as harm caused is limited solely to my own property?

A toaster is not a software platform. You are free to do what you wish with the iPhone or iPad hardware. You can hack the bootloader, run Android or throw the phone/tablet off a building. However, Apple is also free to offer whatever services and impose any policies they'd like on their software platform. Choose to use it, or don't. Freedom!

Quote:

the_stig_1 wrote:

Thirty years ago, if I wanted to adjust the fuel-air mixture on my car I could pop the hood, turn a few screws, swap a few jets and voila! Now, if I want to do the same thing, I'd have to buy a sanctioned computer appliance that could speak to my car's computer, void the warranty and fight engine control software that purposely tries to roll back any changes to the fuel-air mixture. That sucks right? Where's the freedom to use my car that I bought the way I want to? Oh, the horror!

In the meantime, my current car starts in all weather and altitude conditions and is infinitely more reliable than cars of old. It's still a car and it still does the job it was hired to do: get me to work on time.

That's not a representative analogy, as that's not what I'm asking for. The correct analogy would be:

1. The car has a SDK for making apps which run on the car's computer,2. The manufacturer supplies third party apps developed with that SDK via a centrally managed app store,3. Censors the ones they don't like,And 4. Fails to provide a sideloading capability.

All four elements are required to make a representative analogy.

Again, you're confusing the iPhone or iPad as a device and the software that Apple provides with the device. A car provides the service of transportation. By refining the modern car with technology and making it harder for shade-tree mechanics to muck about with the workings of that car, a manufacturer can provide a better service to the end-user. Cars run longer, more efficiently and provide greater comfort and ease-of-use. Nothing about the locked-down nature of modern cars impair the service they provide and in fact, offer tangible benefits to the driver. Similarly, the locked down nature of the iOS platform affords users security, ease-of-use and stability while still allowing them to use the device for the job they wanted to accomplish.

A toaster is not a software platform. You are free to do what you wish with the iPhone or iPad hardware. You can hack the bootloader, run Android or throw the phone/tablet off a building. However, Apple is also free to offer whatever services and impose any policies they'd like on their software platform. Choose to use it, or don't. Freedom

This reminds me of the "freedom" 19th century train conductors had to either be employed (and be certain of losing fingers over time) or surrender their job and whatever form of 19th century pension there was.

You were free to work there or not under whatever unsafe conditions obtained. Freedom!

It was said you could estimate the years of experience by how many fingers they had lost.

And, there were folks just like you arguing for the untrammeled freedom of the railroads to NOT put in the necessary safety measures to stop this (frankly needless) carnage.

What a great exercise in freedom that was!

Finally, this nonsense was stopped. Since things like that, the law has learned to recognize that when there are huge power imbalances in relationships, the kind of freedom argument you make is treated as the Newspeak it is.

Oh, and the kicker? Turns out, that the safety equipment the railroads resisted actually was more efficient and made them more money.

A toaster is not a software platform. You are free to do what you wish with the iPhone or iPad hardware. You can hack the bootloader, run Android or throw the phone/tablet off a building. However, Apple is also free to offer whatever services and impose any policies they'd like on their software platform. Choose to use it, or don't. Freedom

This reminds me of the "freedom" 19th century train conductors had to either be employed (and be certain of losing fingers over time) or surrender their job and whatever form of 19th century pension there was.

You were free to work there or not under whatever unsafe conditions obtained. Freedom!

It was said you could estimate the years of experience by how many fingers they had lost.

And, there were folks just like you arguing for the untrammeled freedom of the railroads to NOT put in the necessary safety measures to stop this (frankly needless) carnage.

What a great exercise in freedom that was!

Finally, this nonsense was stopped. Since things like that, the law has learned to recognize that when there are huge power imbalances in relationships, the kind of freedom argument you make is treated as the Newspeak it is.

Oh, and the kicker? Turns out, that the safety equipment the railroads resisted actually was more efficient and made them more money.

Nothing about the locked-down nature of modern cars impair the service they provide

A great fraction of how modern cars came to be locked down was in response to government mandates. Take away the mandates and who knows how much simpler motors would become.

If you're referring to emissions controls or safety features, then there have been government mandates. However, no government has mandated BMW to fully computerize their cars with a network of literally hundreds of small control units throughout the vehicle, but they have done so because having a complete picture of the car's dynamics allows them to make adjustments during operation seamlessly. It also makes their cars a bitch to work on. So you're wrong here.

Quote:

Moreover, it's also the case that we aren't, even now locked into the automobile dealerships for repairs. We are free to contract with whomever we like to get our cars fixed.

So, your analogy fails on a couple of fronts.

I can take my iPhone, iPad or MacBook to anyone who will fix them, should I choose. Warranty service is provided by Apple, just as authorized dealers are the only place to get warranty work on cars. What's your point here, exactly?

A toaster is not a software platform. You are free to do what you wish with the iPhone or iPad hardware. You can hack the bootloader, run Android or throw the phone/tablet off a building. However, Apple is also free to offer whatever services and impose any policies they'd like on their software platform. Choose to use it, or don't. Freedom

This reminds me of the "freedom" 19th century train conductors had to either be employed (and be certain of losing fingers over time) or surrender their job and whatever form of 19th century pension there was.

You were free to work there or not under whatever unsafe conditions obtained. Freedom!

It was said you could estimate the years of experience by how many fingers they had lost.

And, there were folks just like you arguing for the untrammeled freedom of the railroads to NOT put in the necessary safety measures to stop this (frankly needless) carnage.

What a great exercise in freedom that was!

Finally, this nonsense was stopped. Since things like that, the law has learned to recognize that when there are huge power imbalances in relationships, the kind of freedom argument you make is treated as the Newspeak it is.

Oh, and the kicker? Turns out, that the safety equipment the railroads resisted actually was more efficient and made them more money.

Sometimes, real freedom for people actually pays!

What hyperbolic nonsense. You're equating unsafe working conditions with a choice of computing platforms. One involves bodily harm and even death, the other involves a wealth of options and an almost limitless ability to gather information before making an informed choice. You'd be best served by taking a breath before letting your ideology get in the way of your arguments.

You're equating unsafe working conditions with a choice of computing platforms. One involves bodily harm and even death, the other involves a wealth of options and an almost limitless ability to gather information before making an informed choice.

And yet here you are making the identical arguments the railroads did.

There was a defense made of all that carnage and it was all wrapped in the same language of "freedom" and "the rights of companies."

The issue isn't whether you are losing fingers; the issue is that there is an absurd level of power differential in the relationship and you, like the 19th century legal system and the railroads that used them, are wishing the distinctions away.

You're equating unsafe working conditions with a choice of computing platforms. One involves bodily harm and even death, the other involves a wealth of options and an almost limitless ability to gather information before making an informed choice.

And yet here you are making the identical arguments the railroads did.

There was a defense made of all that carnage and it was all wrapped in the same language of "freedom" and "the rights of companies."

The issue isn't whether you are losing fingers; the issue is that there is an absurd level of power differential in the relationship and you, like the 19th century legal system and the railroads that used them, are wishing the distinctions away.

Jesus.

Here's the thing, ZZ: as much as you'd love to paint a straight line between workers rights and software platform choice, it just isn't as easy as you'd like it to be. An employer is obligated not to put its employee in physical danger, just as any product manufacturer must make every effort to ensure that their product is safe to use. This is markedly different than what you'd propose, which is to dictate to Apple how to design, implement and administer their software platform. Apple's obligation to you ends when they have made every effort to ensure their products won't cause you bodily harm.

Any mental pain caused by using their platform is easily alleviated by using something else, just as distaste for job duties as prescribed can be fixed by quitting.

What hyperbolic nonsense. You're equating unsafe working conditions with a choice of computing platforms. One involves bodily harm and even death, the other involves a wealth of options and an almost limitless ability to gather information before making an informed choice. You'd be best served by taking a breath before letting your ideology get in the way of your arguments.

It's clear that this is an ideological debate. This particular ideology seems to have, at heart, a belief that software makers must be mandated to provide certain options regardless of their willingness to do so - regardless even of the fact that they do provide other products which include those options.

And because it is simple ideology, everyone debating it can simply wave off the arguments and opinions held by others. Argument-by-analogy will fail too, because folks with differing views will simply claim that analogies demonstrating different ideologies are incomplete or inappropriate or whatever.

Nothing to be done about it. Different people, different ideologies.

That's fine by me, but the legal mandate that differing ideologies (or at least, products expressing different ideologies) must be made illegal is, imho, a bit over the top. But hey. If folks like ZZ & Kethinov really want this, then to them I say: knock yourselves out. History will judge you!

That's fine by me, but the legal mandate that differing ideologies (or at least, products expressing different ideologies) must be made illegal is, imho, a bit over the top. But hey. If folks like ZZ & Kethinov really want this, then to them I say: knock yourselves out. History will judge you!

Well, in the first place, "ideology" only happens in the third person. It is "our principles" but "their ideology."

In the second place, this isn't some super liberal idea that has never been tried. Some of the examples I gave earlier were legislated and some, no doubt, came as judicial remedies. Adjusting imbalances in markets is something many conservatives have espoused, so this isn't really inherently some liberal-versus-conservative thing or even a fringe ideology. As a society, we've been at this a long time, now.

In the third place, if there is going to be change, it probably won't come from the likes of me complaining in a forum like this, but from the parties we haven't talked so much about -- all those Lilliputian companies that are being forced to live in Apple's and MS's shadow and live and die by what in some cases appears to be whim. Well, "whim" is one step (at most) removed from a tort in a legal sense.

It's not like they have no rights worth considering, is it? You can say "but they signed up for this" but they said the same thing about a lot else that we decided was too much of a power imbalance to ignore. Fair trade laws come to mind, for instance.

There are, as I already pointed out, a fine potential for equitable arguments and remedies to evolve from the various injuries that are taking place as MS and Apple stand between companies and their consumers. That may be wonderfully specific, and therefor not very interesting to this thread, but it may also motivate Apple and MS to either allow side loading or at least an alternate store or two, which by itself would go a long ways towards eliminating this as a problem.

The biggest problem to me is the non-recourse issue and I think that the Lilliputians may be able to make headway with it one way or another.

If it is important enough, and I think that likely, it will not be left to a few corporate bureaucrats to decide what is and is not sold in the marketplace.

EDIT to add: For what it's worth, I do expect that MS will at some point build in the ability for home users (and/or other non-enterprise markets) to subscribe to third party software repositories within the Metro world. I think if left to their own devices they'd evolve to that point naturally, but I can't fully rule out the possibility that some lawmaking body might force the issue before that happens. For what it's worth, I think MS would be likely to make that move long before Apple would. But that's nothing more than a hunch.

Yes it is. Now that you have the opt-out system you have to deal with any security fallout. If there is no opt out mechanism, then that's not an issue you need to deal with.

Puh-leeze.

If security risk were a valid justification then IE needs to use WinRT and nothing more. It is preposterous to say on the one hand "oh we need sandboxing and tight restrictions to ensure security" and then on the other "but IE, which is routinely exploited and a regular recipient of security fixes, can do whatever it likes".

This is untrue. MS is free to have different standards for itself than others. After all, it can still control the development of the code that it allows exceptions for. It cannot do that with others. They are not similar situations.

And MS would find that irresponsible to provide such an unsupported thing.

So it's irresponsible for Android to possess this capability? And for Windows 7 and Mac OS X to possess it as well?

Windows7 doesn't possess that. This is a *supported* scenario on Windows. You said it was *not* supported on Android. I'm saying that MS would find that irresponsible.

Quote:

Metasyntactic wrote:

It also doesn't help if a major security incident happens because of that unsupported thing and MS just goes "oh wells! it's your fault!"

Since such incidents are not a problem with Android, that argument seems moot.

Yeah. That's a great way to handle security, just assume that things won't be a problem in the future.

Quote:

Metasyntactic wrote:

So what? The vast majority of consumers prefer it.

No, the vast majority of consumers don't care either way. There is no expressed preference for walled gardens.

Yes. There is. The market moved heavily toward walled gardens away from non-walled gardens. Users expressed (and continue to express) deep dissatisfaction with all the problems that come from the 'i can load anything' approach.

Quote:

Metasyntactic wrote:

MS and APple are not beholden to every user. They will never please everyone.

You're right. They can't please everyone. But they can very easily please people like me without it being at the expense of those who benefit from the walled garden.

You say 'easily'. But you handwave away the costs. It's not easy if it means doubling the cost of test of WinRT.

A real choice would be to take the red pill on Wednesday and the blue pill on Friday.

So do that. Buy Windows 8, not Windows RT. Stay in the Metro world when you want; sideload in the Desktop when you want.

What if a user's preferred hardware only runs Windows RT and not Windows 8?

Then that's a tradeoff you make. I like the iPad. I'd like it to run Windows. Tough shit for me. Apple isn't going to go out of their way to make this possible, and MS likely isn't going to try making this work. It's waht i want... but i can't have it.

You can't always get what you want.

Quote:

What about users who want to sideload iPad apps? Or WP7 apps? Or homebrew Wii? Or a bazillion other things your argument conveniently ignores?

Then they may have to go without. Just because a user wants something doesn't mean that the supplier needs to provide it. That's what hte market is for. It allows you to take your wallet and go with someone else. If enough people do that, then MS/Apple will have to adapt.

If security risk were a valid justification then IE needs to use WinRT and nothing more. It is preposterous to say on the one hand "oh we need sandboxing and tight restrictions to ensure security" and then on the other "but IE, which is routinely exploited and a regular recipient of security fixes, can do whatever it likes".

++

Great argument. There's the peek behind the curtain, folks. Pay no attention to the little man. Whatever our preferences and ideologies, when big, powerful companies restrict us "to protect us," it usually turns out that there is something else going on.

No. It turns out there are shades of gray. You can have a principle of erring toward safety, while still recognizing the business need to *ship a browser with your tablet*. Having a tablet without a browser would be a non-starter. Having the browser be unable to JIT code would likely be a serious issue for the platform. So you make some concessions. THat doesn't mean that the overall goal of safety isn't there. It just means that you try *very hard* to keep the exceptions to a minimum. For example, with IE, there are tons and tons of people going over all the lines of code at every level of the stack to try to keep it as safe as possible. 3rd party software makes no such guarantees to quality, and as such can't be given the same level of trust.

Quote:

Here, what's happening (whatever the supposed benefits) is that Apple and MS are inserting themselves between me and every software company that chooses to come to their platform.

Yes. Because in the past when they didn't, the platform *suffered*. App use had declined enormously and the general philosophy told to people was "don't install apps unless they're from this teeny tiny list of publishers that are trustworthy". And even in those case, many apps brought down the computer experience.

MS and Apple are inserting themselves for the health of their respective platforms. That health had been declining *despite* every effort from MS to get ISVs to be better. Heck, they had to browbeat them with things like UAC to even get them to notice.

And that did nothing for the problems in areas like:1) battery life.2) user data safety.3) privacy.4) computer health.

I think the counter argument is that these aren't general purpose computers, they're consumer devices, like toasters

Once you get north of 100,000 applications, I think the argument that you aren't a general purpose computer needs to be laughed out of any forum, legal or otherwise.

You're not general purpose because you cannot run a general purpose application. Your app must be specialized to run under the constraints that the platform now *enforces*. Indeed, that's the very thing that's being discussed. In the past you could always subvert the platform. You could literally run anything (even if that stuff, for example, mucked around with the kernel of the OS). Now you cannot. It's specifically *not general* because being general brought along too many problems.

If you were general purpose then Mozilla wouldn't have a frigging problem. But because it's a specialized platform, and their app doesn't fit into the specialized restrictions, then they are upset.

The "constraint" we're discussing is a made up restriction from a company for reasons they think is a benefit to them.

Any restriction is a 'made up restriction'. The purpose of an OS is to create those made up restrictions. Restrictions on what an app can do with memory. What it can do with the CPU. What it can do with user data. What it can do with devices on the system. What it can do with teh network. They're all made up constraints. And they all exist because the OS maker thought it was valuable for them and the end user.

The "constraint" we're discussing is a made up restriction from a company for reasons they think is a benefit to them.

Any restriction is a 'made up restriction'. The purpose of an OS is to create those made up restrictions. Restrictions on what an app can do with memory. What it can do with the CPU. What it can do with user data. What it can do with devices on the system. What it can do with teh network. They're all made up constraints. And they all exist because the OS maker thought it was valuable for them and the end user.

Actually the purpose of an OS is to improve your computer, to make it easier to use (unless you want to manually code [or copy] every program and swap out disks every time you want to use a new program). An OS should in no way restrict you from doing things, why would it make any sense to offer apps but not different browsers? Wouldn't you complain if microsoft only allowed you to buy their software where they had it (i.e. microsoft office, but not open office, et al)? Why allow you to install chrome or firefox on windows 7 on your laptop? Just use Internet Explorer.

The big problem with this is it makes it easier to target people, you wouldn't need to code attacks for firefox or chrome, only IE which would probably work for nonARM IE as well.

Actually the purpose of an OS is to improve your computer, to make it easier to use (unless you want to manually code [or copy] every program and swap out disks every time you want to use a new program). An OS should in no way restrict you from doing things, why would it make any sense to offer apps but not different browsers? Wouldn't you complain if microsoft only allowed you to buy their software where they had it (i.e. microsoft office, but not open office, et al)? Why allow you to install chrome or firefox on windows 7 on your laptop? Just use Internet Explorer.

To improve your computer and your experience using it, an OS often restricts what you can do.- It restricts on process from hampering other process's memory or kernel's.- It restricts a user (of multi-user system) from randomly reading/writing other users' file.- It restricts you from hampering OS's critical files.Yes with admin privilege you can remove very important system file and make it unusable. Now some OS - like iOS on iPhone and iPad - doesn't allow you it by not even giving a file manager. And they also decided it's better restricting you from running random apps, and apps having all of the traditional privileges.

If you hate it just run another OS. If general public hates it they will fail and eventually give up the restrictions.

PS. I think the seat belt in your car will restrict your body and movement. Yet many cars warn you when you don't restrict yourself with it, some may even refuse to run.

Any restriction is a 'made up restriction'. The purpose of an OS is to create those made up restrictions. Restrictions on what an app can do with memory. What it can do with the CPU. What it can do with user data. What it can do with devices on the system. What it can do with teh network. They're all made up constraints. And they all exist because the OS maker thought it was valuable for them and the end user.

Actually the purpose of an OS is to improve your computer, to make it easier to use (unless you want to manually code [or copy] every program and swap out disks every time you want to use a new program).

Yes. And that's why it has restrictions. As they actually do precisely what you're saying.

however, importantly, for the OS maker "improve your computer" is subjective. For example, if it is support incidences are lowered, then that counts as "improvement". If the majority of users are more satisfied, at the expense of some users, then that is "improvement" as well. Being the best OS for all users is never a goal as it is unattainable.

Quote:

An OS should in no way restrict you from doing things, why would it make any sense to offer apps but not different browsers?

Different browsers are allowed.

Quote:

Wouldn't you complain if microsoft only allowed you to buy their software where they had it (i.e. microsoft office, but not open office, et al)?

Yes it is. Now that you have the opt-out system you have to deal with any security fallout. If there is no opt out mechanism, then that's not an issue you need to deal with.

Puh-leeze.

If security risk were a valid justification then IE needs to use WinRT and nothing more. It is preposterous to say on the one hand "oh we need sandboxing and tight restrictions to ensure security" and then on the other "but IE, which is routinely exploited and a regular recipient of security fixes, can do whatever it likes".

This is untrue. MS is free to have different standards for itself than others. After all, it can still control the development of the code that it allows exceptions for. It cannot do that with others. They are not similar situations.

You're not general purpose because you cannot run a general purpose application. Your app must be specialized to run under the constraints that the platform now *enforces*. Indeed, that's the very thing that's being discussed. In the past you could always subvert the platform. You could literally run anything (even if that stuff, for example, mucked around with the kernel of the OS). Now you cannot. It's specifically *not general* because being general brought along too many problems.

If you were general purpose then Mozilla wouldn't have a frigging problem. But because it's a specialized platform, and their app doesn't fit into the specialized restrictions, then they are upset.

This is sophistry of the first order.

If I re-write an already approved app in Java or Perl, the new version won't any longer be accepted.

If I write four astronomy apps and some drone in Apple doesn't like the fourth (or simply the fact of there being four), only three get approved. So, the only thing "not general purpose" about the fourth is when it was submitted.

If I write an app for the enterprise, it can be anything at all and Apple will accept it on the same platform. Maybe it would be accepted in the consumer side, maybe not. I presume MS will do the same.

You have a really rarefied definition if you think a program isn't general purpose just because it is written in an enterprise cubicle as opposed to another kind of cubicle.

Get out of fairy land. The truth is, what's in and out is already easily seen as pretty arbitrary and known to be arbitrary. It isn't decided all that much by what it does at the user's level. It is decided more by whatever whims that Apple (and now MS) decide to implement, now and in the future.

There's nothing meaningfully "not general purpose" here except some arbitrary and apparently movable definition that these companies choose to adopt.

We once didn't have in-app purchases. Now we do. We once didn't have enterprise exceptions. Now we do.

There's nothing going on here but corporate self-interest in terms of what's in and what's out when it comes right down to it.

These are general purpose machines. It's just there's some capricious interference now and then in terms of what goes onto them.

Quote:

In the past you could always subvert the platform. You could literally run anything (even if that stuff, for example, mucked around with the kernel of the OS).

There are plenty of offerings that are considered "general purpose" that allow for no code in supervisor state and defend themselves at that level. And yet, they allow for any old problem state compiler to run and any JIT strategy to be implemented. This has been true since at least MVS in the '70s, if not earlier.

No it's not. It's another form of the defiention of what's a computer versus what's some CE device.

TO illsttare meta's point lets bring up the win8 skin pack. What that does is patch various files in windows to insert custom bitmaps and code to circumvent various system checks. A program like this would *never* be allowed on any curated platform and yet for a general purpose computing platform it's allowed